Stephen Sterling

The applicants sought to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants, arguing insufficient grounds and a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the warrants, including redacted portions under the `Garofoli` "step six" procedure, to protect a confidential informant's identity.

The court found the confidential informant credible and reliable, and the detailed information provided, along with police corroboration of non-criminal details, established reasonable grounds for the warrants.

The application to quash the warrants and exclude evidence was denied.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant that led to the seizure of firearms and narcotics, alleging breaches of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The dispute focused on the procedural steps governing redactions of the information to obtain (ITO), the role of judicial summaries, and whether the Crown must elect between relying on the redacted ITO or the original unredacted ITO.

The court held that judicial summaries at steps two and six of the Garofoli procedure are not evidence but procedural tools designed to allow meaningful participation by the accused where disclosure must be limited to protect a confidential informant.

The court further held that steps five and six are sequential rather than mutually exclusive, allowing the Crown to first rely on the redacted ITO and, if necessary, subsequently seek to rely on the unredacted ITO.

Procedural directions were issued to govern the conduct of the Garofoli hearing prior to trial.

The accused brought a pre‑trial disclosure motion seeking police disciplinary records under McNeil and additional confidential informant materials under Stinchcombe in relation to a search warrant that resulted in the seizure of firearms and drugs.

The court held that the accused failed to establish any evidentiary basis that McNeil records existed regarding the investigating officers and declined to compel production.

A subpoena issued to the Chief of Police seeking disciplinary materials was quashed as improperly issued because there was no basis to conclude it would produce material evidence.

Most requested disclosure regarding the confidential informant was denied due to informant privilege and lack of relevance beyond the investigative file.

However, the Crown was ordered to disclose a properly redacted copy of the original Information to Obtain rather than an edited version.